Add new comment

Before this was posted, I had already been looking at 2010 roster construction ... and the guy I was LEAST enthused about (option-wise) is Jack Wilson.  What I'm wondering is what is the defensive skew between Wilson and Hall. 
Part of the thing that tends to get lost in roster turnover is that regardless of what you may want for the future, you've GOT to send somebody out there to cover each position every day.  I suspect that Z included Cedeno because he had little faith in YuBet.  But, Cedeno was a complete and utter disaster at short ... and by the end, it was clear to everyone on the planet that SOMEBODY was needed to replace Cedeno. 
Wilson comes over and is viewed as a stablizing force at short, who can provide great defense, and (hopefully) adequate offense.  Problem is, the offense doesn't happen, AND he gets hurt very quickly.  Bad luck, yes ... but for 2009, most of the bill is covered.  So, you're getting what you get basically free of charge.
But, for 2010, if you think Wilson is going to provide a .660 offensive contribution, then you've got to seriously debate whether it is remotely possible to cover his contract with defensive contribution.  Me?  I'd like to see Hall get the bulk of the September innings at short, if for no other reason than to get a real eyeball on what you think his defensive value is compared to Wilson.  At this point, I think everyone would agree that Hall has far more offensive upside.  He's also cheaper.  If the defensive delta isn't too bad, the club has a LOT more payroll flexibility paying the 600K to get out of the Wilson contract, and accepting Hall as the interim SS, (pending any cheap spaghetti Z might toss into the pot during the off season).
I *LOATHE* the talk of moving Lopez to 1B.  It's about the worst possible step the club could take going forward, because 1B *DEMANDS* .800+ production, and even though I'm high on Lopez, he'd be guaranteed to drop in relative value in such a move.  But, with Branyan sidelined, SOMEBODY has to play first.  So, against lefties, sure why not use Lopez there to get some more flex to look at other guys, (while still trying to compete with what you've got).
The surprising reality today is that AL 2B and 3Bs currently have nearly identical profiles.  So, moving to third wouldn't change Lopez' value ... BUT, I believe it'll be MUCH harder to find a  2B offensive upgrade than it will at third.  For 2010, DH, LF and 3B are the three positions that Jack can work on upgrading.  The plus is that NONE are defensive-critical, (LF is the one that would skew a little up, due to Safeco). 
If you have faith in Saunders, then you need to pull a Branyan/FGut success at DH and 3B.  (Considering how bad 3B was this season, getting upgraded at 3B shouldn't be hard).  But, Griffey and Sweeney -- especially with his recent hotness -- haven't been horribly below average. 
In the end, I am liking the gamble of Wilson being able to post a .725 OPS in Safeco less and less, and to compete with the big dogs, the club CANNOT have multiple sub-.700 bats in the lineup.  If Wilson is posting a .660, then the club has to roll an 8-dice Yahtzee everywhere else. 
I agree that Z has had PLENTY of misses, (short term), but still love what he's done because almost every move made has been designed to address BOTH immediate and future needs.  BUT, that's a trade-off.  If you're addressing BOTH, then you're getting less quality in both categories.  It's simpler to go after EITHER immediate or future needs.  If clubs are offering 2-4 year prospects for Washburn, and you take it -- you've quit for 2009.  So, if you want to "appear" to be continuing to try and compete in 2009, then SOMEBODY you get for Wash has to end up playing immediately. 
French doesn't have what it takes, (today).  But, I'm feeling that he's likely still suffering from that dead arm, and have hope that come 2010 after considerable rest, the fans might get to see what the scouts were selling Z.